House of Lords: Recalls

Lord Patten: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether the House of Lords may be recalled separately from the House of Commons; and, if so, whether he will set out the procedures to bring this about.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Each House of Parliament may be recalled separately.
	In the House of Lords, Standing Order 16 sets out the procedures to bring about a recall. These procedures are entirely independent from the House of Commons recall procedures. Standing Order 16 states that:
	"16 (1) If, during any adjournment of the House, the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the public interest requires that the House should meet at a time earlier than that appointed, he may signify that he is so satisfied and notice shall be given and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in the notice, as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
	(2) If the Lord Chancellor is unable to act for the purposes of this Standing Order, the Chairman of Committees, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government may act in his stead.
	(3) Notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, the House may meet for judicial business at a time earlier than that appointed if the Lord Chancellor or, in his absence, the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is satisfied that it should do so and has signified that he is so satisfied and has given notice to such Lords as he thinks fit."

Public Bodies: Publication

Lord Grenfell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the next edition of Public Bodies.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Government intend to publish the next edition of Public Bodies before Christmas.

Disabled Motorists: Parking in Central London

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will facilitate the rationalisation of the present sets of regulations for disabled drivers' parking in the five local government areas of central London.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: A national scheme of parking concessions for disabled motorists—known as the Blue Badge scheme—has been in operation since 1971. It was introduced under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and includes all but four central London boroughs (Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, part of Camden and the City of London) based on the severe problems with traffic congestion and pressure on parking space in these parts of London.
	These authorities have introduced their own independent local parking schemes for disabled people who live and work in these areas by means of a traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These are exclusive to individual boroughs and there is no requirement for them to be compatible with other schemes. However, the Department for Transport continues to hold regular meetings with the four central London boroughs to encourage them to be as flexible as possible with these schemes and also to provide concessions for Blue Badge holders. In this respect we have succeeded in securing increased parking provision for Blue Badge holders.
	The issue of removal of the exemption for the four central London boroughs from the Blue Badge scheme to make it a truly national scheme is being considered under a current comprehensive review of the scheme. The Secretary of State intends to make an announcement on the future shape of the scheme in autumn 2002.

Gypsy Sites

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list the gypsy sites approved by local authorities in England since those authorities were advised to consider the provision of further sites by Circular 18/94.

Lord Rooker: A list of local authority gypsy sites, indicating the number of pitches on each site, is produced annually by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (and previously by the Department of Transport, Local Government and Regions), based on information provided by local authorities. These figures are routinely placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they become available. The figures published for January 1994 prior to the issue of the guidance in Circular 18/94 show there were 307 sites, containing a total of 5,068 pitches. The latest figures, as at January 2002, show 325 sites, containing a total of 5,005 pitches.

Gypsy Sites

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have corrected the information about gypsy sites given on the website www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/information/index14.htm, in the light of errors drawn to their attention by Dr Donald Kenrick and others.

Lord Rooker: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been reviewing the statistics in the Gypsy Site Count for January 2002, and has included the information provided by Dr Kenrick in that review. Any corrections will be included in July 2002 Gypsy Caravan Count statistics, which will be published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website shortly. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they become available.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to review both how and what data are collected for the Gypsy Site Count and Gypsy Caravan Count once it has received the results to the recently conducted Gypsy Sites Research.

Fire Services Inspectorate

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Under which ministry the Fire Services Inspectorate is administered; whether the inspectorate will have permanent offices; and, if so, when and where.

Lord Rooker: HM Fire Services Inspectorate is administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The inspectorate is currently based at Horseferry House in London but will be moving to Portland House in London in August 2002.

Local Authority Accounts: Public Inspection

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the process by which members of the public have access to the detailed accounts and the processes of local authorities in England and Wales.

Lord Rooker: The Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996 provide for local authorities to make their annual accounts and other documents available for public inspection for fifteen working days. Authorities must advertise the availability of the accounts for inspection at least 14 days before the commencement of the inspection period. After the end of the time allowed for inspection, electors can exercise their rights to object to the auditor on matters relating to the accounts. We plan to consult later this year on proposals to amend the Accounts and Audit Regulations, which may include the possibility of changes to the arrangements by which accounts are made available for public inspection.

Local Government Finance: Grant Distribution System

Lord Tope: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What options are they considering for the transition period for the new formula grant distribution system.

Lord Rooker: We will take decisions on the movement between the old and new grant distribution systems, including the duration of the transition and the levels of floors and ceilings, ahead of the 2003–04 provisional local government finance settlement. As in previous years, we will announce those decisions around the end of November as part of the provisional settlement process.

Local Government Finance: Grant Distribution System

Lord Tope: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will set out exemplifications of the effects of each of the options set out in Chapter 9 of Formula Grant Distribution: A Consultation Paper for each London borough.

Lord Rooker: The effects on each London borough of the options contained in Chapter 9 of Formula Grant Distribution: A Consultation Paper are set out on page 112 of that document.

Local Government Finance: Grant Distribution System

Lord Tope: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish revised exemplifications of each of the options set out in Formula Grant Distribution: A Consultation Paper updated for the announcement of the comprehensive spending review decisions.

Lord Rooker: We are not intending to revise the exemplifications set out in the consultation paper, because using the spending review figures would introduce a new source of variation between the figures for 2002–03 and those produced by the options we have set out. This variation would obscure the consultation's focus on options for the new system.

Local Government Finance: Grant Distribution System

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list the Planning Policy Guidance Notes at present in force, indicating in respect of each the date of the present edition; the date of the previous edition; and the date on which it is anticipated that the next edition will be published.

Lord Rooker: The table shown below highlights the current Planning Policy Guidance Notes produced and issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Details are provided in the table on the publication of the most recent version, alongside the previous edition that it subsequently replaced. In certain cases the guidance produced replaced a circular previously issued by the relevant government department, of which details are provided. Where no date is given guidance has been produced for the first time.
	As the noble Lord may be aware, the Deputy Prime Minister made an announcement to the House on 18 July entitled "Sustainable Communities: Housing and Planning". As part of this announcement details were given concerning the revision of national planning guidance. We intend to review existing policy guidance over the next three years. Our priorities for review remain as expressed in the Planning Green Paper, PPG1, PPG4, PPG6, PPG7 and PPGs 15 and 16. We will seek to reduce the volume of guidance, while increasing the clarity; making them clearer, more concise and better focused on implementing policy objectives, while aiming not to change the existing balance of economic, social and environmental objectives in national policy.
	
		Planning Policy Guidance Notes
		
			 PPG Title Latest Previous 
			 1 General Policy and Principles Feb 1997 Mar 1992 
			   
			 2 Green Belts Jan 1995 Jan 1988 
			   
			 3 Housing Mar 2000 1992 
			   
			 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms Nov 1992 Jan 1988 
			   
			 5 Simplified Planning Zones Nov 1992 DoE Circulars 25/87, 24/88 and Jan 1988 PPG5 
			   
			 6 Town Centres and Retail Developments Jun 1996 Jul 1993 
			   
			 7 The Countryside-Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development Feb 1997 Jan 1992 
			   
			 8 Telecommunications Aug 2001 Dec 1992 
			   
			 9 Nature Conservation Oct 1994 DoE Circular 32/81, 1/92/27/87, 24/82 
			   
			 10 Planning and Waste Management Feb 1997 Replacing Waste Management part of PPG23 
			   
			 11 Regional Planning Oct 2000 Feb 1992 
			   
			 12 Development Plans Dec 1999 Feb 1992 
			   
			 13 Transport Mar 2001 Mar 1994 
			   
			 14 Development on Unstable Land Apr 1990 Ministry of Housing and Local Government Circular 44/61 
			   
			 15 Planning and the Historic Environment Sept 1994 DoE Circular 8/87, 18/88 
			   
			 16 Archaeology and Planning Nov 1990 
			   
			 17 Sport and Recreation Jul 2002 Sept 1991 
			   
			 18 Enforcing Planning Control Dec 1991 PPG1 Paragraphs 30/31, PPG4 Paragraph 19 and DoE Circular 22/80 
			   
			 19 Outdoor Advertisement Control Mar 1992 
			   
			 20 Coastal Planning Sept 1992 DoE Circular 12/72 
			   
			 21 Tourism Nov 1992 DoE Circular 13/79 
			 22 Renewable Energy Feb 1993  
			   
			 23 Planning and Pollution Control Jul 1994 DoE Circulars 69/65, 43/76, 4/82, 21/87 
			   
			 24 Planning and Noise Sept 1994 DoE Circulars 10/73 
			   
			 25 Development and Flood Risk Jul 2001 Sept 1994

Africa: Aid

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make it a condition of any future agreement by the G8 to award aid to African nations that African leaders hold each other accountable for sound economic management, good governance, and human rights; and, if so, what evidence they have that such accountability happens now or has happened in the past.

Baroness Amos: Each G8 member will decide for itself how to meet the commitments entered into at the Kananaskis Summit, including on the methods and criteria for awarding aid. The Department for International Development is considering how best to use the resources allocated to development assistance from 2003 to 2006 under the new Comprehensive Spending Review but, as the Prime Minister announced before the G8 Summit, bilateral assistance to Africa will rise to £1 billion by 2005–06. In setting our priorities we will take fully into account the extent to which developing country governments pursue effective pro-poor policies and implement reforms in governance. We encourage other donors to do likewise. Many African countries have already made commitments in the agreements that they have with the international financial institutions.
	We are strongly supportive of African countries' efforts to set up the African Peer Review Mechanism that is being developed through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. These were endorsed at the recent African Union Summit and we look forward to seeing the mechanism become operational. It is intended as a mechanism for African countries to review each other, just as peer review in OECD is intended for OECD countries to be subject to review by their peers.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are giving priority to the monitoring of civil society participation in poverty reduction strategy papers; and how they will ensure that the international financial institutions take such views into consideration within the approval process.

Baroness Amos: DfID attaches great importance to the participation of civil society in the poverty reduction strategy (PRS) process, and we are tracking the extent and nature of civil society engagement through a number of channels.
	One important channel is the UK representatives on the executive boards of the IMF and the World Bank which see the joint staff assessments (JSA) produced by the staffs of these institutions on completed PRS papers to assess whether they provide a credible framework for new lending programmes. The JSA includes a description of the country's participatory process.
	A second channel is through DfID's country programme offices, which are in regular contact with civil society organisations. We have supported the consultation and monitoring process in several countries—Uganda, Honduras, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and the Gambia. In several of our country programmes, we are also providing technical, human and financial support to poverty monitoring units, which encompass or have strong institutional links to civil society organisations.
	A third channel is DfID's PRSP monitoring and synthesis project which was set up to collect information from a wide variety of sources—including DfID offices themselves—on the PRS process. Its recent report on participation in PRSPs in sub-Saharan Africa concluded that civil society participation had added much to the process, but work needed to be done to consolidate the gains made so far. DfID's country offices are also supporting a number of UK-based NGOs to work with developing country partner organisations to strengthen their capacity to engage in national debates and policy processes.

Zimbabwe

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to compensate white farmers in Zimbabwe for the loss of their land; if so, which channels they propose to use; and whether these channels are satisfactory.

Baroness Amos: Her Majesty's Government have no such plans. It remains the responsibility of the Zimbabwe Government to compensate for the land they are acquiring and leasing to others through their current resettlement and indigenisation programmes. The UK has repeatedly offered to provide development funds to support fair and well managed land reform, including land purchase, which contributes to poverty reduction. Sadly this is clearly not the case at present and an ill conceived programme is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

United Nations Population Fund

Lord Elton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the decision of the United States Government announced on 22 July to withdraw funding from the United Nations Population Fund on the grounds that "UN Population Fund monies go to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs", they will now withdraw British funding from the United Nations Population Fund.

Baroness Amos: UNFPA funds in China are used to implement its programme which is aimed at demonstrating to the Chinese authorities that there is a viable alternative to the current administrative family planning approach. Birth targets and quotas have been removed in the counties where UNFPA is operating. The US delegation which visited China in May found no evidence of UNFPA involvement in coercive abortion or sterilisation in China, and recommended that the US Government should continue to fund UNFPA. Following a visit to China in April this year, a cross-party group of MPs came to similar conclusions. It is disappointing that the US Government have decided to ignore their own delegation's recommendations.

Russia: EU Agriculture Assistance

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much agricultural assistance has been given by the European Union to Russia in each year since 1991.

Baroness Amos: The European Commission has advised that under its TACIS Food and Agriculture technical assistance programme the following was provided:
	1992: 20.67 million euros
	1993: 12.27 million euros
	1994: 15.91 million euros
	1995: 15.88 million euros
	1996: 10.60 million euros
	1997: 12.98 million euros
	1998: 8.40 million euros
	1999: 6.24 million euros
	2000: 0
	For 1991 there was no separate funding set aside specifically for assistance to the agricultural sector in Russia. The EC's Food and Agriculture technical assistance programme to Russia was disbanded after 2000. Funding is now provided to related activities and no longer specifically targeted to the agriculture sector.

HIV/AIDS Programmes: UK Funding

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they divided the £200 million 2001–02 budget for HIV/AIDS between prevention, care and curative medicine; whether it included a contribution to the Global Fund; and whether they intend to increase the United Kingdom contribution to that fund.

Baroness Amos: DfID currently supports programmes to tackle HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in over 40 countries. Our support is largely dedicated to the development and implementation of effective national strategies to combat HIV/AIDS. Our focus is on a comprehensive approach which includes prevention, care and impact mitigation. It is not possible to disaggregate our expenditure in the manner requested.
	Our contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) is in addition to our bilateral expenditure. The UK has pledged US200 million dollars to the GFATM and we are working to ensure the fund's work is successful. It is too early to consider further pledges.

Conflict Prevention and Management

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will achieve the objective of improving the "effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of people whose lives are affected by violent conflict and a reduction in potential sources of future conflict, where the UK can make a significant impact", as outlined in the HM Treasury document 2002 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 2003–2006 (Cm 5571).

Baroness Amos: The Government are committed both to preventing violent conflict from emerging and to building peace in fragile post-conflict situations. The main global instruments are international development co-operation, political and diplomatic efforts and sanctions. We are working with the UN, EU and other partners to improve the effectiveness of all these measures.
	In addition we created two conflict prevention pools on 1 April 2001 to improve the effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management. The Africa Pool (for sub-Saharan Africa) has been allocated £50 million per annum from 2001–04 to spend on conflict prevention programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. The Global Pool budget (for the rest of the world) was £60 millon in 2001–02, £68 million for 2002–03 and £78 million for 2003–04.
	Both pools work towards the PSA target by combining the direct conflict prevention work of the three departments most directly involved in conflict prevention—FCO, MoD and DfID.
	Most of the funds allocated to the Global Pool have been divided among a set of geographical and thematic priority areas:
	The Balkans
	Central and Eastern Europe
	Russia and the Former Soviet Union
	Indonesia and East Timor
	The Middle East and North Africa
	Afghanistan
	Belize/Guatemala
	Nepal
	Sri Lanka
	Small Arms and Light Weapons
	Strengthening the UN
	Security Sector Reform
	EU Civilian Crisis Management
	The OSCE and Council of Europe.
	The thematic priorities are of potential benefit to countries in both pools.
	Ministers have agreed the following geographic/thematic priorities for the Africa Pool in 2001:
	Sierra Leone
	Great Lakes (DRC, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda)
	Angola
	Sudan
	Nigeria
	South Africa
	Building African Peace Support Capacity
	Tackling the Economic and Financial Causes of Conflict.
	In addition the pools contribute to the additional cost of the UK assessed and non-assessed contributions to support UN and other peace keeping and peace-enforcement operations. In 2001–02 these included commitments in Sierra Leone, DRC, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Iraqi no-fly zones.
	A report on the activities of the pools in their first year will be published later in 2002.

Territorial Army

Lord Redesdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many members of the Territorial Army in each of the Army's regional brigade areas are considered to be both fit for role and to have achieved the minimum level of training.

Lord Bach: Individual members of the Territorial Army (TA) are considered fit for role, which is defined as the minimum level of training required for mobilisation, when they have completed two phases of training. Phase 1 is recruit training, which is either delivered in a two-week package or over a series of weekends. Phase 2 is to prepare them to a standard at which they can train with their unit. This phase will vary in length depending on an individual's role and trade. As at 1 June, the number of TA personnel, considered fit for role, and by definition to have achieved the minimum level of training, by regional brigade area, is shown in the table below:
	
		
			 Regional Brigade Number Fit for Role 
			 15 (North East) Brigade 3,676 
			 49 (East) Brigade 3,426 
			 43 (Wessex) Brigade 1,396 
			 145 (Home Counties) Brigade 522 
			 42 (North West) Brigade 2,374 
			 143 (West Midlands) Brigade 1,695 
			 160 (West) Brigade 1,585 
			 51 (Scottish) Brigade 2,372 
			 London District 2,941 
			 107 (Ulster) Brigade 1,014 
			 Specialist TA (national) 2,200 
			  
			 Total 23,201

Service Personnel: Immunisation

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made to immunise service men and women against the threats of biological and chemical attack, if the Armed Forces should become involved in a major redeployment to the Gulf.

Lord Bach: The immunisation currently available to protect United Kingdom service personnel against exposure to biological warfare agents is a programme of voluntary immunisation against anthrax. I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, on 13 June 2002 (WA 47). Immunisation is one part of the package of capabilities which protects our troops and enables them to respond effectively to biological threats. This package includes detection capabilities, protective clothing and equipment, decontamination procedures, other medical countermeasures and training. Measures are in place to ensure that all personnel are up to date with all routine immunisations.
	It is not possible to immunise against chemical warfare agents.

Service Personnel: Immunisation

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action has so far been taken to ensure that all members of the Armed Forces, particularly reservists, are up date with all the immunisation protection their service could necessitate.

Lord Bach: Vaccination status is an important aspect of the operational readiness of Armed Forces personnel, and it is the responsibility of commanding officers to ensure that personnel are up to date with the appropriate immunisations. Routine immunisations against hepatitis A, typhoid, meningococus C, rubella (for females and medical personnel), tetanus, diphtheria, polio and yellow fever are offered to members of the Armed Forces. Members of the regular forces, and reservists at high readiness for deployment, have their immunity maintained by routine booster immunisations. For other members of the reserve forces, immunisations should be brought up to date upon mobilisation. Units should also carry out pre-deployment checks of vaccination states.
	Any individuals who on entry to the services lack a BCG scar and test as having low immunity will also be immunised against tuberculosis. Personnel operating in areas with a specific health hazard, and those in special occupational risk groups (such as medical personnel), may also be given additional vaccinations before deployment. All three services have routine administrative procedures in place to check the vaccination status of both regular and reserve personnel.

Service Personnel: Immunisation

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What protocols relating to immunisation are in place to monitor British forces if they should redeploy to the Gulf region.

Lord Bach: It is Ministry of Defence policy that all vaccinations administered to personnel are to be recorded on their personal medical records. Any vaccination, administered to personnel while they are deployed are to be recorded on their operational medical record and the information transferred to their personal medical records on return to their home base.

Mental Health Bill: Treatability Test

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the context of the draft mental health Bill, what diagnoses they envisage will be applied to people who, under current legislation, would fail the "treatability test" but who might be detained under the terms of the draft Bill.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Mental Health Act 1983 requires that in the case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment it is likely that treatment will alleviate or prevent a deterioration of the patient's conditions in order to justify his detention for treatment. This has led to a significant number of people with a primary diagnosis of personality disorder, and who pose a risk to themselves or to others, being excluded from treatment because of uncertainty about whether their personality disorder can be "treated".
	The draft mental health Bill does not rely on particular categories of mental disorder, and does not require that treatment alleviate or prevent a deterioration of the patient's condition. Instead, it requires that appropriate treatment be available. The same conditions for compulsion will apply to all patients with a mental disorder. We envisage that this will mean that some pople with a diagnosis of personality disorder may meet the conditions for compulsion in the draft Bill where they would not come within the scope of the 1983 Act.

Abortion Statistics

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many abortions have been performed after 30 weeks gestation for each of the past five years; and at what specific point of gestation each of these abortions has been performed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information requested is given in the following table:
	
		Legal Abortions—numbers by gestation weeks and year, England and Wales
		
			  Gestation Weeks 
			 Year 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Total 
			  England and Wales Residents only 
			 2001* 4 5 6 3 0 3 0 1 1 23 
			 2000 7 3 3 5 3 2 2 0 0 25 
			 1999 4 3 2 6 3 1 2 2 0 23 
			 1998 4 5 5 1 3 2 2 0 0 22 
			 1997 2 2 1 3 7 2 3 0 0 20 
			 1996 6 1 4 2 3 0 2 1 0 19 
			  Non-Residents 
			 2001* 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 8 
			 2000 4 4 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 16 
			 1999 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 8 
			 1998 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 
			 1997 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
			 1996 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 
		
	
	* 2001 data is provisional.
	Source:
	Department of Health Statistics Division 3G.

Blood Plasma

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the public can expect an announcement of the ministerial decision regarding the funding for the provision of non-United Kingdom plasma anticipated by the National Blood Service on 8 February.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government announced on 15 August 2002 that fresh frozen plasma will be obtained from the United States for new-born babies and young children born after 1 January 1996 as an added precaution against the theoretical risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease transmission. This announcement is in line with advice from the United Kingdom expert advisory committee on Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation.

Electro-convulsive Therapy

Lord Chan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many patients have been given electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) in 2000 and 2001; what were the medical indications for using ECT in patients; and what controls and safeguards are in place for the use of ECT.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The most recent information available concerning trends in the administration of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is contained in the Department of Health statistical bulletin Electro Convulsive Therapy; Survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England. It looked at information gathered from a one-off survey of National Health Service and independent sector care settings, including nursing homes, and was undertaken to provide data on ECT that are not currently available elsewhere.
	The survey collected data on total number of administrations of ECT in NHS and independent sector care settings; sex, age, ethnicity, legal status and method of consent.
	In the three-month period surveyed it was found that:
	there were about 16,500 administrations of electro-convulsive therapy;
	2,800 patients received ECT treatment;
	there were 900 male patients receiving treatment, compared with 1,900 female patients;
	44 per cent of female patients and 36 per cent of male patients receiving ECT treatment were aged 65 and over;
	75 per cent of ECT patients were not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983;
	of the 700 ECT patients formally detained while receiving ECT treatment, 59 per cent did not consent to treatment.
	The survey did not reveal anything surprising or untoward about the use of ECT but it did confirm a downward trend in its use.
	In the past ECT was believed to be effective with a wide range of mental health conditions but is now recognised to be of most benefit in the treatment of a narrower band of conditions. Evidence and research tend to support the use of ECT to help people with very severe, generally psychotic, depression and puerpural psychosis, either of which can be life-threatening if left untreated. People who are this severely depressed may refuse or be unable to eat and drink, with a consequent high mortality, as well as being at very high risk of suicide. For these people ECT can produce a faster onset of therapeutic action than is the case with drug-based treatments and can be a life-saving treatment.
	Health professionals and mental health services managers are expected to ensure that ECT is administered to patients in accordance with the detailed guidance published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Special Committee on ECT entitled The ECT Handbook—The Second Report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Special Committee on ECT.
	ECT is administered if consent is given, but where the patient does not consent, or a doctor certifies that the patient is mentally incapable of consenting or refusing, the responsible medical officer must seek a second opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor, who will be asked to confirm the clinical need for ECT as a treatment of choice.

Mercury Pollution

Lord Lewis of Newnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the amount of mercury pollution in the atmosphere arising from the burning of coal in power stations and the mercury pollution of air from other sources.

Lord Whitty: Estimated UK emissions of mercury to air fell by approximately 73 per cent, from 31.8 tonnes to 8.5 tonnes, between 1990 and 2000 (the latest date for which figures are available). Mercury emissons from coal burning in power production fell by approximately 82 per cent, from 7.1 tonnes to 1.3 tonnes, over the same period, and in 2000 approximately 16 per cent of all anthropogenic (ie man-made) mercury emissions to the atmosphere came from this source.
	The following table shows estimated UK emissions of mercury to air from anthropogenic sources between 1990 and 2000. Data since 1970 on UK emissions of a wide range of air pollutants, including mercury, are published annually in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), which can be viewed at www.naei.org.uk.
	
		Estimated UK Emissions of Mercury to Air 1990–2000
		
			   1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 per cent in 2000 
			 Combustion in Public Power Production (tonnes) Coal 7.1 7.0 6.6 4.5 4.2 3.9 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.6 1.3 16 per cent 
			  Fuel Oil 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 per cent 
			  Waste Incineration 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.11 1 per cent 
			 Other Combustion in Energy Production & Transfer (tonnes) Petroleum Refining Plants 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 per cent 
			 Combustion in Commercial Institutional Residential Plant 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 6 per cent 
			 Residential & Agricultural (tonnes) 
			  Commercial, Public & Agricultural Combined 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 per cent 
			 Combustion in Industry (tonnes) Iron & Steel 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 6 per cent 
			  Non-Ferrous Metals 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.7 9 per cent 
			  Other Combustion in Industry 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 12 per cent 
			 Production Processes (tonnes) Iron & Steel 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 6 per cent 
			  Process in Industry 8.1 8.9 7.4 3.3 3.6 4.2 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 17 per cent 
			 Waste Treatment & Disposal (tonnes) LandFill 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 5 per cent 
			  Cremation 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 16 per cent 
			  Incineration 5.0 5.0 4.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 5 per cent 
			 Total (tonnes)  31.8 32.6 30.5 20.1 19.6 19.2 14.6 12.2 11.1 8.9 8.5 100 per cent 
		
	
	Source:
	National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory.